Foolish Philosophers, Logs, and Eyes

One of the hazards of being a writer is that somebody is always sending you their book to review. Marvin Olasky recently got sent a book:

The prestigious Oxford University Press sent me the new book Morality Without God by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a Dartmouth professor. (I’m going to quote him a lot, so I’ll use his initials.) WSA begins by complaining that his students quote to him Dostoevsky’s favorite line, “If God is dead, everything is permitted.” WSA then argues that we don’t need God: We all should simply agree not to harm others—cause death, pain, or disability—unless there is “adequate reason.”

Basic mission: derive Ought from a materialist universe of Is. It’s doomed from the start, of course. But in this case, it’s particularly doomed because WSA seems to be completely oblivious to how humans function in a world infected by original sin. It’s easy-peasy, sez he. Just agree not to harm others unless you have “adequate reason”.

Readers of my blog may recall that, on rare occasions in the past, we have (now and then) discussed the morality of torture. You may also recall that, when the subject was first raised a few years ago, apologists for torture were insisting that “adequate reasons” for torture were things like The Nuke That is About to Destroy NYC. In the words of Charles Krauthammer:

Let’s take the textbook case. Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He’s not talking. Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it? Now, on most issues regarding torture, I confess tentativeness and uncertainty. But on this issue, there can be no uncertainty: Not only is it permissible to hang this miscreant by his thumbs. It is a moral duty.

The thing is, Krauthammer later modifies his scenario from torturing to save a million people to torturing to save one person. What he does not modify is his conviction that “if you have the slightest belief” that torture will get you the information to save lives, you have a moral duty to torture. In other words, “slightest beliefs”, inklings, hunches, paranoid fears, unsubstantiated guesses, and bogey men tend (under the influence of our fallen nature) to become “adequate reason” for committing any number of crimes against humanity very quickly. And the victims of those crime often tend to be found (after the fact) to be innocent. But in a world where we and not God are the authors of Good and Evil, that’s a problem we can quickly patch up by declaring the victim to be guilty anyway.

And, of course, once we’ve accepted that our fears constitute “adequate reason” to harm innocents, why should we stop with things like “fear of death” as a basis for torture? Why not “fear of having my stuff taken”? And why focus our energies only on the suspect? So often people will talk much more quickly when they see their children threatened, won’t they? If we are the authors of good and evil, why not?

Now, some of my readers may be just about to say, “Yeah! Boy, are those atheist moral relativists stoopid or what?” But the thing is: it was Catholics who, in percentages greater than the average population, defended and cheered for the use of torture during the Bush/Cheney regime of war crimes.

Moral: Just because your Church holds the correct moral theory doesn’t mean you have the guts to apply it when crunch time comes. Before scolding WSA for his stupid moral theories, a lot of Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM] owe God a visit to the confessional for an ocular log removal treatment. WSA has not (yet) been granted the gift of faith. He prattles ignorantly because he knows no better. What excuse to do Catholic torture defenders have? To whom much is given, much will be required.

For further reading about the disgrace of Faithful Conservative [TM] American Catholics over the past decade, go here and here.